Episode 1767 Scott Adams: Let's Talk About The January 6 Hearings And All Of That Badness
My new book LOSERTHINK, available now on Amazon https://tinyurl.com/rqmjc2a
Find my "extra" content on Locals: https://ScottAdams.Locals.com
Content:
Televised J6 hearings
Economic depression vs recession
10 Known Democrat HOAXES and J6
Protecting America or an insurrection?
Elon may walk away from Twitter purchase
Persuasion tip for Democrats
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
If you would like to enjoy this same content plus bonus content from Scott Adams, including micro-lessons on lots of useful topics to build your talent stack, please see scottadams.locals.com for full access to that secret treasure.
---
Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/scott-adams00/support
And today we're going to be talking about January 6th stuff and all kinds of stuff.
And before we get going, How would you like to take it up a level with a simultaneous sip?
Yes, you would. All you need is a cup or a mug or a glass or a tank or a chalice or a canteen jug or a flask or a vessel of any kind.
Fill it with your favorite liquid.
I like coffee. And join me now for the unparalleled pleasure.
It's the dopamine of the day.
The thing that makes everything better.
It's called the simultaneous sip.
Go! You're glad I wasn't frozen in carbonite.
Good. I wish I had a nickel for every time somebody said, I'm glad to hear that you've not been frozen in carbonite, because I'd have five cents by now.
So let's talk about the situation.
So on Thursday, there's going to be this live telecast from Congress of the January 6th hearings.
And I was too sleepy this morning to correctly do what would have been one of the greatest tweets of all time.
But instead will be a tweet that I'm going to delete right now because I can't have that thing up for another minute.
So I'll tell you what I was supposed to say that it didn't say at all.
Here we go.
I know it was.
I said, should Fox News do live coverage of the long COVID telethon Congress is holding on Thursday?
That would have been really clever if I had tweeted it after I had some coffee and when I realized that the pun is really long TDS and not long COVID. If you take out the TDS part, it doesn't make any sense at all.
It doesn't make any sense. And so I was a little too tired when I tweeted that.
Let's get rid of that one. Goodbye.
God, that could have been such a good tweet, too.
Oh, well. Dopamine.
We'll have to wait. I'll have to come up with a better tweet.
But the idea was that this is going to look like a long TDS telethon.
The January 6th thing already seems like it's The last pandemic, you know what I mean?
It's like we're past the pandemic or whatever the protests were on January 6th, but now we're just into the long aftermath of it, the long haul TDS. And it's going to feel like that when you watch it.
It's going to feel like you went back in the past or something.
Because to me, it already feels like a long time ago.
Do you feel that?
Do you feel that the January 6th event, the original event, it just feels like it's ancient history already.
Like it was a long time ago.
But they will make it new and fresh by putting it on TV. We'll talk about that a little bit more.
First, the scariest news of the day.
According to Rasmussen, 55% of American adults, this is not just voters, but adults in America, believe it is likely the United States will enter a 1930s-like depression over the next few years.
What? 55% of the country expects a depression?
What? I don't know if they're wrong.
Do you? How many of you expect a depression?
Now, we're not talking about a recession.
I suspect that people confuse the two.
Don't you? I feel like this number is big because people don't know the difference between a recession and a depression.
A recession would be a normal rebalancing.
You know, you get a bubble, it pulls back.
You get a bubble, it pulls back.
So recessions are sort of, you know, a built-in maintenance part of the system and not really something I would worry too much about.
But a depression can just take you off the map.
I mean, you know, even the Great Depression was, what was the unemployment rate during the Great Depression in the 30s?
The unemployment rate was in the 20s?
Mid-20s, right?
25%? Yeah.
I'm not so good with my history, but I think mid-20s.
And if you think about it, that's still 75% of the people had jobs.
And that's the worst it was.
So the worst our economy ever was, 25% of the people were unemployed.
Now... I wonder how that compares to right now.
Because don't you think there are a lot of people who could work who just decide not to, but in the old days they all had to?
I feel like we've got way more than 25% of able-bodied people who are not working.
It's just they don't want to, or don't need to, or something.
So I wonder if those are even comparable numbers.
In other words, the Great Depression had 25% of the, let's say, the least employable people, one assumes, at least during that situation, they were the least employable.
And you saw during the pandemic that we took our least employable people and just sent them money and kept them home, and it didn't affect the economy that much except for inflation.
So... I don't think that comparing things works exactly, at least to the 30s.
And I don't think that the public knows the difference between a recession and a depression, so I'm not sure I'd believe this number.
But what I worry about is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.
But that hasn't seemed to happen yet.
We're on the verge of it happening.
But it's a self-fulfilling prophecy when companies start pulling back In anticipation of problems in the future.
And then they're pulling back today is what actually causes the problem in the future.
But it doesn't look like most companies are pulling back too much, does it?
I mean, Tesla famously and a couple others.
But not really widespread yet.
So it's still a wait and see on the economy.
So talking about January 6th, and we'll be talking about election fraud, real and alleged, and here's the arguments that you're going to see in the next week because this January 6th thing is happening.
You're going to hear people saying that the protesters who went to the Capitol were obviously trying to overthrow the country because there was no election fraud.
And since there was no election fraud, The people protesting were only there to do something bad because the system worked the way it was supposed to and gave us a fair result.
Now, that's the framing that the left is putting on this.
That's not even really close to what was happening.
Number one, nobody knows if any fraud happened in 2024 that would have changed the election.
It's unknowable.
What we do know is that the voting machines were vulnerable in ways we don't fully understand.
And we do know that the system was not fully auditable and that it looked suspicious to a lot of Americans.
That's all we know. We also know that the courts are not the right place to figure out if an election was fair.
It can in some specific cases, but it's not an audit.
The courts are only going to look at things that they have standing for, and when an election is done, the courts say, ah, we don't want to get involved, it's done.
So the court system was always the wrong tool.
So when you say, no court has found any fraud in the 2020 election, I keep confusing my ears, sorry, you could also say, no...
No Geiger counter has found any fraud in the 2020 election.
It's true. You could turn on a million Geiger counters and none of them would indicate fraud in the 2020 election.
You could also look at the oil level indicator on your car and it does not indicate there was any fraud in 2020.
So that's proof. If you can look at the oil indicator of your car and it doesn't say anything about election fraud, well, we're done here.
Oh, oh, you're saying that the oil meter in your car is completely unrelated in any way to an election's validity.
Well, that's what I'm saying about the court.
The court, too, is a tool that has nothing to do with the election credibility.
Unless somebody brought them the right question...
And then they had standing, and none of that happened.
So if you use the wrong tool to search for something and then you don't find it, the Democrats have concluded that if you use the wrong tool to search for something and don't find it, that's proof it doesn't exist.
That's as stupid as a human can be.
You know, there are lots of things in politics where you say, well, that's your narrative, or you have different facts or different priorities, or You're just playing politics.
Maybe it's just power. This isn't any of those things.
This is raw, pure stupidity.
The people who are saying that because the courts did not find fraud, therefore there wasn't any, there is no other word for that.
That's just stupid.
And I'm pretty generous with different political opinions.
Very generous.
I don't want to say they're stupid most of the time.
Lots of times they say, well, you've got a good point, but maybe I like these priorities better, or I have different context or different information.
But rarely can you look at something this cleanly and say, no, that's just stupid.
There's nothing else going on there.
If the courts didn't find any fraud, it's because they were the wrong tool.
They were never the right tool to look for fraud.
And it's amazing how many people believe this.
And it requires stupidity.
It doesn't require gullibility.
This is different.
Gullibility is something we all are susceptible to.
But you have to have a pretty deep level of stupidity to think that now finding something means it isn't there.
I mean, that's really basic thinking stuff, right?
You should have learned that around sixth grade or so.
All right. So every time they talk about whether or not there was election fraud, and they try to connect that to the protests on January 6th, your answer should be the following.
It doesn't matter if there was fraud.
That's the wrong question.
The question was, did the protesters believe there was enough of a signal for fraud just on the surface that they needed to look into it?
And the answer is, that's exactly what they thought.
Most of the protesters thought it was obvious there was something going on.
That doesn't mean there was.
But to them, it looked like the signal was just blaring in a way that it had never done before.
And those people...
What their mental state was is the entire case.
If their mental state was, we're not sure we got a fair election, let's delay just long enough to make sure it was fair, that's not an insurrection.
That's trying to prevent one.
That's preventing an insurrection.
And so, if you were the Republicans during these hearings, What you should do is move the attention away from whether or not there was election fraud to the question of whether the people had reason to believe that there was strong enough signal that it needed to be looked into, at least long enough to know if there's some major glaring problem here.
Now, I would just keep hammering on the Democrats and saying, how do you know what the Republicans were thinking?
Can you present some evidence of people's internal thoughts?
Because if you put the people on there and ask them their internal thoughts, they would all say the opposite of what the Democrats are saying.
They would all say, well, it looked like there might have been some fraud and we wanted to check it out.
That won't even be close to what the Democrats say they were thinking.
So how can the Democrats make the case that it was an insurrection unless they can get even one protester To say, no, our point was to overthrow the government.
We didn't really care about the election outcome.
It was just an excuse to overthrow the government.
I don't believe they can find one person to testify to that.
Because I don't think it existed.
Do you? And that's what the Republicans should just keep hammering on.
Here's another thing the Republicans should hammer on.
They should use the event because it's, you know, it's obviously a show trial kind of thing.
They should grandstand themselves, and they will, but specifically they should say that the real victims here are the people who believed the fake news.
And, well, let me put it a different way.
I would read my hoax quiz into the record and say, here's the context.
For the January 6th event.
Here are ten major hoaxes that the Democrats played on the country and largely got away with them.
Now, if these ten hoaxes were not known hoaxes, would you believe that this election was fraudulent?
Ask any Republican who was there.
So I would put one of the people who protested on the witness stand, if there is such a thing, and I would say, if I'm a Republican, I'd say, were you there to overthrow the government?
No. No.
No. I was there to protect the government.
And I thought it looked like it needed protecting.
So what do they do?
What do the Democrats do to that?
They just say, no, you're lying?
Because you could put on a hundred of them, and they would all say the same thing.
No, I thought I was protecting the system.
That's why I went. I didn't go to overthrow the system.
I went there to protect it.
Now, if they said...
To one of the protesters.
Let me read the top ten hoaxes from the Scott Adams hoax quiz.
And just read the hoaxes and say, is this the context in which you distrusted the election?
Because it is.
It is. Imagine being one of the protesters, and you just get to talk to Congress about what you're thinking.
And Ted Cruz says, all right, here are the list of top ten hoaxes that were played on the country around this time.
There was the Russia collusion hoax, you know, the fine people hoax.
You just go down the list and say, you're aware that all those were hoaxes, right?
Now, most Trump-supporting people will say, yes, I know those are all hoaxes, that they were all illegitimate Democrat efforts.
And then you say, is this the context in which you wondered if, given that everything else was corrupt...
Is this the context in which you wondered if the election had been corrupt as well?
And what would they say?
They would say yes.
That is exactly the context.
If I had not seen the Steele dossier, I wouldn't even think an election could be rigged.
If I had not seen so many hoaxes presented as truth, it wouldn't have even occurred to me to go to the Capitol.
Because I would have thought, well, I guess I was just surprised at the outcome.
I just don't like it.
But once the context is nothing but hoaxes, nothing but hoaxes, why would you believe that the election was the only credible thing that happened in five years?
What rational person would say, you know, every single entity in the government is corrupt, and we know that for sure, But not the election system that was run by 50 separate entities that have incredible incentive and lots of opportunity for cheating.
No, that went fine.
But every other institution and government entity has been proven fraudulent, corrupt, and thoroughly disrespectful.
But not the voting system.
Wouldn't you love to see somebody just say what I just said in public?
You'd love it. I mean, I think they're handing the Republicans.
Now, can somebody tell me which Republicans get to talk in these January 6 hearings?
Can you...
Is it Rand Paul?
Is he on the committee? Give me the real answer, because I need a real answer here.
Because I want to know if there's anybody with talent on the Republican side.
Is it Rand Paul?
Yes. It's not Kinzinger, is it?
Did the Republicans quit?
There were some Republicans who...
Is Matt Gaetz on there?
He's not on there, is he? How come we don't know that?
Romney? No. Is there no Republican on the committee, right?
So does that mean that no Republican gets to ask any questions?
How does that work? It's just Kinzinger and Liz Cheney?
Really? So are you telling me that these hearings will happen without any legitimate Republican pushback?
Is that what's going to happen?
That's not going to happen, is it?
People are saying yes, that there will be no Republican pushback.
Are you kidding? My God.
Well, one assumes that the Republicans will make statements, at least during the breaks, right?
So, anyway, I guess we need to know more about how this thing will run.
But I would like to see Ted Cruz or somebody of that quality just rip him apart.
Because they're really setting themselves up here to have the entire system put on trial.
And I think that's what the Republicans should do.
They should put fake news on trial.
Because if there's one thing you could point to that would create a riot, it's the fake news.
Those people didn't get that way on their own.
The Republicans didn't become the way they are because they watched Fox News.
That wasn't what happened.
They got that way because they watched what the Democrats did to them...
For years. Now, I'm not saying Republicans haven't done bad things to Democrats, right?
But from the point of view of the protesters, they've been victimized for years, and this was just more of it, or could have been, so they wanted to check it out.
Cruz is a senator.
So the hearings are in the House, so we need a representative.
Dr. Carlson is going to be counter-programming.
So Fox News is going to run the hearings on their Fox Business Channel, which is much smaller viewership.
What do you think about the fact that Fox News ran the Benghazi hearings to death, whereas they're not going to run this on the main Fox News channel?
Does that seem fair? Does that seem fair?
Well, do you think Benghazi was a hoax?
I feel like Benghazi was a tragedy, and maybe we don't know exactly what happened there.
But I don't feel like it was a hoax so much as just a tragedy.
Now, there was that hoaxy part where they said it was caused by a film, right?
Or a video or something?
Now, that part was a hoax.
But I don't think that was terribly important to what happened, was it?
What does it have to do with anything?
So the question is, does Fox News run...
Programming that's basically built around hoaxes.
You know, and there is a different quality to the Republicans being wrong versus the Democrats.
The Democrats look like they literally just make stuff up.
You know, the top ten hoaxes are literally just made up.
And often they're made up based on a real event, but then they change the context to make it up.
It feels really different...
Than some of the things that the Republicans are alleged to have done.
It does feel different.
Because don't you think that the Republicans just believed everything that they said about Benghazi?
I feel like they believed it.
I don't know. It doesn't feel like a hoax.
It's a distraction from gas prices, yeah.
Did CNN and MSNBC show the Benghazi hearings?
Probably not much.
Honestly, I didn't really pay attention to the Benghazi thing, because to me it just looked like political bullshit.
Now, I agree that it had to be investigated to find out what the hell went wrong, because as tragedies go, that's top shelf.
But yeah, Benghazi was not a hoax in any way that we think of hoaxes, that is correct.
But also, I don't think there was anything there.
Except that they lied about the cause of it.
But in terms of what happened for the responses and stuff, that looked like incompetence.
Wasn't it? Just incompetence?
That's all we know.
I mean, we don't know more than that.
But it looked like incompetence.
Um... All right.
So, what else is going on?
So Elon Musk is putting the squeeze on Twitter, and he's saying that he'll walk away from his offer to buy it, or at least at that price, if they can't give him internal data on spam and fake accounts.
Now, I saw a bunch of people act as though this is some kind of a trick.
And that maybe he didn't mean to buy Twitter at all and he's just using it to, like, damage them.
No, that's not happening.
Let me tell you exactly what's happening.
What's happening is business as usual.
There's no story here.
No matter who you were, if you were Elon Musk or anyone else, you make an offer for the company and it's based on the company having told you the truth.
Right? Right? You make your offer based on the company having told you the truth about the nature of their business.
But then there's always this second phase in which you get to dig into that truth to make sure it's verified.
Due diligence, right.
So he's doing his due diligence, and Twitter's saying, no, we can't tell you the most important figure.
It's the most important data, and we can't tell you.
If you're buying a company for, you know, $44 billion dollars, And they won't tell you, they won't confirm their data that is the core engine of their entire profit model, and they can't do it.
Would you buy that company?
Not if you're smart.
Not if you're smart.
So no. If you want to know what will Elon Musk do, I can tell you exactly what he'll do.
If the data shows that Twitter told the truth, he will buy the company for the price that he offered.
Guaranteed. If it turns out that he does get the information and it is different from what they promised, he will lower his offer price.
Guaranteed. You don't have to wonder about that.
If he does not get information one way or the other and they say we won't tell you, he will walk away from the deal.
Guaranteed. Guaranteed. Guaranteed.
You don't have to wonder what's going to happen here.
There is no mystery here at all.
Only the mystery of what they'll tell him.
But his actions are the same as every investor in this situation.
There's nothing uniquely Musk-like about what's going on.
This is just business as normal.
Exactly the way it's drawn up on paper.
The way every deal is supposed to work.
Just like this. So sometimes you do walk away.
It's unusual because it means the company lied to you about something that you could later confirm.
So why would you lie about something that you could later confirm and then your lie would be revealed?
So it could happen, but we'll see.
The most likely outcome would be some ambiguous internal data will be produced.
Elon Musk will lower his offer.
And they'll say that's too low, and then they'll renegotiate.
That's the most likely outcome.
When I was arguing online that January 6th was not an insurrection, I was asked, why no insurrections until Trump?
If Trump is not responsible for getting the crowd all worked up, Why were there no insurrections in other close elections?
Because there have been other elections that Republicans lost that were close.
So why only this time?
And the implication is it was Trump himself who whipped up the demonstrators.
To which I say, was there nothing else different?
Trump was the one thing that was different?
How about the fact...
That we'd listen to five years of absolute fake news.
You don't think that mattered?
When the country saw every institution operate fraudulently, in their opinion, and then they see this election that looks sketchy, did you really need Trump to tell you that this looks sketchy?
No. It only had to be an outcome you weren't expecting.
And the people who thought Trump would win Got an outcome they weren't expecting.
So that alone is all that happened.
Now you put that, the unexpected outcome, and then you put that in the context of the top ten hoaxes, why would anybody believe this was a fair election?
It is not reasonable to assume this is the only non-corrupt element in the whole fucking world.
Let me just say it again.
If it's your belief That every entity in the United States is corrupt, and you've watched it yourself, except for all 50 elections in the 50 states, you're a fucking idiot.
You are a fucking idiot, if you think that's true.
Now, that's different from saying the elections were rigged.
I don't have evidence of that.
I've seen the 2000 Mules film, and I walked away saying, well, that raises many interesting questions I would like to have a final answer to.
But it didn't convince me.
It didn't convince me the election was rigged.
So I'm not on the it's been proven, it's been rigged thing.
I don't think... You know, if I had to bat...
If I had to put a bat, I wouldn't make a big one.
But if I made a small bat...
I'd say that the election probably was close enough to fair.
If I had to bet. But I'm certainly not going to rule out the possibility that one of those 50 states in a swing state did something sketchy.
That would be ridiculous.
Just ridiculous. Moreover, I will tell you that since we know there are vulnerabilities, now we know the voting machines had some hacking vulnerabilities, We can guarantee that if those holes don't get plugged, they will be used for bad purposes.
Because that's always the case.
Whenever there's an opportunity for badness, and it's easy, and there's a big payoff, and lots of people are involved, somebody's going to take that.
It's just free money sitting on the table, or it wouldn't look like it, free money.
Somebody's going to pick it up.
So we can't know if this past election was fraudulent, but we can say with complete certainty that future ones will be.
Are you with me? We can't know if the last one was rigged.
Not for sure.
But we can say with 100% confidence future ones will be.
Because it's possible.
That's all you need to know.
There's no other data you need to know.
It's possible. Therefore it will be.
And we're not fixing it.
So we are, as a strategy for a country, deciding collectively to not have credible elections going forward.
We've actually decided that as a country.
You don't think we have?
We have actually, literally fucking decided not to fix our elections.
Do you know why? Because we're not doing it.
If the country had decided to do it, you'd see it being done.
We've decided to complain.
We've decided to complain, and we've decided to disagree.
That's all we've decided.
We have not decided to fix the system.
So, of course, it'll be corrupt in the future, if it's not already.
It has to be. There's no other way it can go.
No other way it can go.
All right. Here's a persuasion tip for Democrats.
And I would love to see this brought up at the hearings.
For years now, the GOP has been calling the Republicans Nazis.
Right? That part we can all agree on, right?
That the Democrats have been calling the Republicans Nazis and neo-Nazis and neo-Nazi supporters for now several years.
If you believed that the Trump supporters were...
Actual Nazis.
Isn't it your patriotic duty to rig the election, to keep them out of office?
There's a question I would ask a Democrat during the hearings.
I would say, Dear Democrat, do you believe that the Republicans are similar to or in any way act like Nazis?
And make them answer that question in public.
Can you tell the public, do you believe that Republicans are Nazi-like or operating in the fashion of Nazis?
What would a Democrat say?
They can't say no.
They already trapped themselves because they've been saying yes forever.
And they can't let their voters hear them say the Republicans are not like Nazis because their voters are convinced they are.
So suppose you get them to admit it and say, yes, you know, in important ways, I think the Republicans are like fascist totalitarians.
So suppose you get them to say that.
Here's the follow-up question.
Well, can you blame the Republicans, given that they're also aware of your attitude about them, and they're aware of the top ten hoaxes that have been played against them, such as the Russia collusion hoax, Could you blame them for believing that the election was rigged when you've just admitted your incentive to rig it is very high?
Because you'd want to keep Hitler-like things out of office.
So would you, Mr.
Democrat, I'm going to put it as a hypothetical.
If you could rig an election to keep Nazis out of office in the United States, would you do it?
Pin drop. Got real quiet at home there, didn't it?
Ask them in public, if you think that Republicans are Nazis, would you, if you had the opportunity, if you had the control, would you rig the election to keep them out?
Yes or no? How much do you love that?
I bet you love it a lot.
Now, do you see why I'm saying the Democrats might be walking into a trap?
Because the trap is there.
The trap exists.
You just have to have a Republican that's clever enough to spring it.
They're going to put their foot right in it.
It's already there. The foot is in the trap.
All you need is Ted Cruz to go over and say, well, I believe there's a foot in our trap.
Click. Click. The trap is there.
The leg is in it.
Just snap it shut, and you're done.
Now, I don't know if the Republicans will be putting up their A-team to do anything about this or not, but we'll see.
Yeah, Ted Cruz won't be there yet, right, because it's a House event.
Have I ever told you how useful it is to not be embarrassed about anything?
Because I wonder about, you know, you watch me start talking about this topic.
Here I am talking in public about this event.
And I'm, like, confused about even which House of Congress is handling it.
It doesn't bother me a bit.
Because to a large extent, I feel like what we do here is we're working it out.
Yeah. Like, I don't have the answers that I'm giving to you.
We're sort of working it out together.
So you can watch your comments change my views in real time, which is part of the fun.
Now, if the only thing that happens is clever Republican pundits say what I said, then nobody on the left is going to hear it.
But I really want the left to hear that there's a consequence...
To framing the other side as Nazis.
And that the consequence is they will act as if you mean it.
The protesters acted as if the Democrats were telling the truth.
Think about it.
If the Democrats were telling the truth...
That they believed.
Now, the truth would be what they believed, not what is the literal truth.
But if they were telling the truth, that they believed that the Republicans are Nazis, they had to rig the election.
Or they have to explain why they didn't.
Because I would want them to rig that election.
I would. I mean, actually, legitimately, no irony.
This is not hyperbole.
This is not just being argumentative.
If somebody was running in this country and looked like they could win, and I thought they were actually as bad as Nazis, I would rig an election.
I would break the law to keep them out of office.
Would you? I'm not sure what you'll say.
In the comments, would you rig an election, break the law, break the law of the United States and rig an election if you could stop who you honestly believe was a Nazi?
From getting into office. Somebody says no.
Interesting. Now, why would you say no?
Because you wouldn't be sure?
Because in my hypothetical, you're sure.
You can never be sure.
But in the hypothetical, you're sure.
Oh, because of consequences, right?
No, I'm going to say that there might be consequences.
They might be bad.
But I feel like you'd do it anyway.
It's like killing Hitler, right?
Everybody says they would kill Hitler if they had a chance.
But you'd be killed too.
But you still think you'd probably do it.
I mean, I feel like I would.
If I had a chance of killing Hitler, but I knew I'd get killed too, I feel like I'd still take the shot.
I don't know. I mean, I'd rather somebody else did.
But if I happen to find myself in that situation and nobody else could do it, I feel like I'd take the shot.
You never know until you're there.
But, like, philosophically and just knowing my own internal makeup, I think I would.
I don't know. Yeah.
Would you strangle Baby Hiller?
Yeah. Probably.
Probably. Probably. But it has to be under the circumstance that you know it's going to work.
You know he's out there.
That's not a real situation.
That, ladies and gentlemen, is all I needed to say today, because I think the January 6th thing will be the dominant story.
Is there any story that I missed?
You can't predict the future.
Well, maybe you can't.
No, that's true. You can't predict the future.
Kyle Rittenhouse. Yeah, Kyle Rittenhouse is suing the media for ruining his life.
And I feel like he's going to win.
Don't you? How could Kyle Rittenhouse not win this?
Because, I mean, he was called everything from a white supremacist to murderer...
And all of it is objectively not true.
I mean, it's pretty easy to show that none of that has any evidence for it.
Putin looks hale and hearty in his latest interviews.
They will claim he's a public figure.
Well, not when he did it.
That's different, right?
He already won against Whoopi, did he?
I didn't hear about that Georgia voting kind of thing.
Oh, so here's another one of the fake news hoaxes.
Do you remember when Trump called, was it the Secretary of State of Georgia, and said something like he only needs to find 10,000 votes or something?
Do you remember that? I only need to fine, or you only need to fine these votes.
Now, the people on the left believe that listening to that audio is proof of a crime.
Do you see a crime in that?
What exactly is the crime that they're imagining?
They're imagining that fine me votes was an invitation To rig an election and that Trump said that while other people were listening and he knew it.
Do you believe in any world that Trump would get on a phone call with people listening, knowing it's a public recorded situation, and he would ask somebody to fraudulently change some votes?
There isn't the slightest chance that happened.
There's like none. Zero.
Trump doesn't even use email.
He doesn't leave a record of conversations.
There's a reason he does that, because it can blow up in your face.
There's no way in the world that he was asking for something illegal to be done in front of all those witnesses while it was being recorded.
That didn't happen. Now, I can't read minds, but it is the least likely interpretation.
The most likely interpretation is...
That he thought that any time you audit an election, you can find votes.
Because you know what?
It's true. Every time you audit an election, you either get rid of some votes or you find some votes, don't you?
Every time. And he's saying we just need to find this many.
Now, that may have been an impossibly large number.
But, you know, what is Trump some election expert?
He knows how many votes a recount could turn up.
And he did think there was some sketchiness.
I think legitimately he probably thought that.
They leaked the call.
They leaked the call, and then they framed it as something it wasn't.
Yeah. The actual call doesn't have anything illegal in it.
And the context was clearly finding him a correct vote.
They gave him the result he wanted.
All right.
Anyway, anything else that I didn't talk about yet?
Make that 11 hoaxes, yeah.
You know, when I ask for a list of hoaxes on the Republican side, I get either old stuff or things that look like things that people actually believed as opposed to an intentional hoax.
I mean, the Russia collusion thing is people who didn't believe something trying to make you believe it.
That is really different from believing something and being wrong about it.
Like, I don't see those as the same.
Give us three that you think.
See, that's the trouble.
There are lots of things that I believe Republicans believe that I don't believe.
But that's different from hoaxes.
A hoax is somebody made it up.
And I don't know that...
You know, let me give you a clean example.
Uranium One. The idea that Hillary was selling our uranium one, or I guess it was a Canadian company operating in the United States or something.
But because there were some resources there, the uranium, that we thought were national treasures, it was dangerous to have Russia own that company.
And that it was all because, you know, Putin was bribing Hillary or something.
Now, how ridiculous does that feel by today's standards?
Because remember when that was happening and I said, why are we even worried about this?
The mine is in the United States.
It doesn't matter who owns it.
If it ever became a military necessity for us to own all that uranium that's coming out of the mine, we would just take it.
There was never anything there.
If it ever became a national problem, we'd just say, oh, this mine is in the United States.
There's a national security interest.
You're going to have to sell it to us.
We'll pay market price, but we'll just take this company because there's a security reason.
Nothing would stop us from taking that uranium.
Nothing. So there was never a story there.
At all. And...
And Benghazi, to me, looks like some big incompetence.
There might have been some cover-up.
But I don't know that that was a hoax, exactly.
I think it was Republicans who could smell a cover-up and were trying to dig it out.
That's completely different.
Yeah. Yeah, Benghazi was based on a true story.
The part that may not be true is what people were thinking and doing behind the scenes.
That part would be hard to know.
Stronger fentanyl, yeah.
Yeah, that story's been around. Car fentanyl's been around for a long time.
Scott won't admit, this is a comment, that the DNC murdered Seth Rich.
No, I don't.
I don't. So let me tell you what I think about the Seth Rich story.
It's just something we don't understand.
That's it. You don't think that plenty of people have been killed for reasons we don't understand?
I feel like it probably happens a lot.
The fact that his wallet wasn't taken, that doesn't mean anything to me.
Are you persuaded by the fact that he wasn't robbed?
That shouldn't persuade you at all.
Because there are plenty of reasons that people get killed, and it's not all about robbery.
Imagine, if you will, that the perpetrator murdered him, intended to rob him, But as soon as he shoots, he looks around and sees witnesses.
So he runs. I mean, that would be the most normal thing you do.
You kill a guy, you look around, and you realize that you attracted a bunch of attention with the gunshots, and then you run.
So you leave the wallet.
All right. 140 million donated to Clinton Foundation.
Well, the Clinton Foundation is sketchy as hell.
It does look like they created an entity for people to attempt to buy influence.
And then I think the game is that you ignore them anyway.
You take their money and then you don't give them what they want.
I think that's part of the game.
But I think that was pretty transparent in a horrible way.
It was transparent. Which take don't you like?
Which of my takes don't you like over on Locals?
It was a clear laundering operation.
Yes. It was a clear laundering operation in terms of influence buying.
Yes. You take the move, right?
All right. The Clinton Foundation has never had an independent audit.
You know, but the thing about the Clinton Foundation is it's so obvious what its real purpose is that why would you even need to audit it?
All you really want to know is who put what money into it because you just keep an eye on them because there's something going on there.
Thomas Massey calls for exiting the UN. I've grown very fond of Thomas Massey's provocative opinions, which is different from agreeing with him.
I just like the fact that he's probably the smartest person in Congress.
And I mean if you were to actually measure his IQ against all the other people.
Could be the top one. It's in the top three, probably.
Yeah, he's an MIT graduate.
So when he disagrees with everybody in the world, and the first thing you think is, well, he's not going to be able to back that up.
And then you hear his argument, and you're like, oh.
Oh. Well, actually, there are reasons for what he says.
And they kind of stand up, even if you disagree with them.
At least you say, oh, okay, that is a reason.
So it's fun to watch his act, because most of the people who are provocateurs are also idiots, but to have a provocateur who is literally a genius, that's fun to watch.
Because you think he's put himself in an unwinnable, undebatable, losing situation, and then he opens his mouth and you go, well, okay, okay, that's how he got into MIT, I guess.
Talking about Thomas Massey.
Tennessee representative, right?
All right. Kentucky.
I'm sorry. Kentucky. Duh.
Would you be surprised that we Californians sometimes confuse Kentucky and Tennessee?
I know.
Surprising. Surprising.
Sometimes we do that. Alabama and Mississippi?
Well, it feels like the same place to me.
I shouldn't say that.
All right. But it is definitely a California blind spot.
I will say that that part of the country, the Kentucky, Tennessee part of the country, is looking better and better every day.
What did I eat yesterday?
That's a weird question.
All right.
The Adams law of slow-moving disasters only works if people cooperate.
No. I'd say it only works if enough people cooperate.
So you only need the people who matter to cooperate.
You don't need most people.
Alright. That, ladies and gentlemen, Is the end of my show.
Probably the best thing you've ever seen in your life.
